Hypothetical: $100 Game

[Tucker Case]

If I was player A, I'd offer 51/49. (it wasn't an option so I picked 50/50 in the poll)

If I was player B, I'd reject any off that was not 50/50 or better for me (even if the person offered what I would offer).

My rationale:

I don't really care about the sum of money involved, so it's all about winning the game. Winning the game for player A is getting player B to accept any offer that benefits Player A more. A 50/50 split is a "loss" for player A. A rejection is a loss for Player A.

Winning the game for Player B is getting at least $50 or rejecting it. Accepting less than $50 is a loss for Player B.

So the offer I would give as Player A would be the offer that has the greatest chance of earning me a "win" as Player A.

The only offers I'd accept as player B would be one's where I "win" or else I will exercise my option to snatch the win away from Player A.


If the sum being divided were something substantial, the threshold for me to accept a "loss" in the game would be when the amount of money I could win was large enough that I was willing to lose the game. Let's say that it was $10,000 being divided instead of 100.

I'd gladly accept a 9,000/1,000 split because the "consolation" prize is enough to make losing worth it. If I were player A in such a scenario, I would size up Player B in order to determine what I should offer. If they look like they wouldn't care too much about $1,000, I'd offer a more fair split. If they look like a normal person, I'd offer 9,000/1,000.

 

[Wiseone]

I think the poll, although its just 11 people, but I could say 78% to sound more convincing, shows a trend towards a social norm of fairness. That is, its not right to take advantage of someone in a poor or powerless situation, such as under pure logic being forced to accept a single dollar while you take 99.

The 50/50 splits is equal and leaves the deciding party without a sense of guilt or shame in having taken advantage of a situation where they were placed as the decider purely by chance, and I believe there's an underlying agreement that people expect from one another for fairness. Also consider that not feeling the sense of guilt may be more valuable to the decider than an extra 49 bucks. Thats the problem I see with a lot of economic theory, it ignores things it can't quantify, like "feelings," or even worse actually tries to quantify them.

 

[Gardener]

I would offer 50/50 split because the potential animosity created were I to be greedier outweighs the difference between 50 dollars and whatever other amount I might suggest.

 

[rivrrat]

I'd say 50/50 cause that's how I roll. Unless I thought Player B really needed the money much more than me, in which case I'd say 1/99

 

[Tucker Case]

Unless I thought Player B really needed the money much more than me, in which case I'd say 1/99

Good point. If player B looked like $100 dollars was a big deal for them, I'd probably do the same,


If it was reversed and I was player B and Player A looked like they really needed the money, I'd accept any offer and give them my portion afterward.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I would probably just go with 50/50 because it seems fair. But I would probably also agree to take less if I was better off than the other guy since its the right thing to do (in other words, I agree with the above posts). I wouldn't expect the same in return though because expecting others to be moral is a road to disappointment.

 

[Cold Highway]

I would give it 50/50 split so the guy doesnt jump me the second I turn my back. In addition I would also like to know where the money came from.

 

[Tucker Case]

I wouldn't expect the same in return though because expecting others to be moral is a road to disappointment.

I agree, to a degree. I never expect anyone to act in any certain way with me personally, but I do generally expect others to act in moral ways with people other than myself.

I think that I'd rather risk disapointment than believe that people are generally douchebags.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I agree, to a degree. I never expect anyone to act in any certain way with me personally, but I do generally expect others to act in moral ways with people other than myself.

I think that I'd rather risk disapointment than believe that people are generally douchebags.

Its a good stance. Personally, I think people mean to be nice but let life get in the way. Me included.

But overall, I think morality should be universal. A person should treat a homeless or convicted murderer with the same general human respect that they should give a pillar of the community. Stuff like trust should be earned, but general human decency should be given freely (stuff like being polite or treating people with dignity). The lack of it is our biggest societal problem and its even worse when people like Ayn Rand try to make being a jerk into a moral high ground.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Both of your rational greatly confuses me.

Economics has to account for psychology otherwise, you remove the key ingredient of what economics is about.

My initial premise is that of cold, calculation with no psychology. Just numbers. With that in mind, both people gain from the 99/1 split, and since Person A has the control, of course that person should choose the $99. Both win. "Fairness" is irrelevant without human psychology. But you bring up a good point, and this is why "classical" versions of certain economic theories such as socialism, communism, anarchism, and libertarianism do not work.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

What are you defining traditional as?

CC says "pure" which I think is incorrect because in order for it to be pure, you would have to always include psychology.

I use "pure" and "traditional" interchangably.My economics classes in college followed the Paul Samuelson model. He wrote the textbook I used.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

-- since Person A has the control --

If Person B has the power of veto and thus both lose - I felt he/she/it had control. Certainly as a Person B I'd never agree to a $1 prize if the other person was to walk off with a free £99.

-- I think that I'd rather risk disapointment than believe that people are generally douchebags.

But you said you'd still love me in the morning...

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

If Person B has the power of veto and thus both lose - I felt he/she/it had control. Certainly as a Person B I'd never agree to a $1 prize if the other person was to walk off with a free £99.

Why? You'd still be ahead by $1, free? See the point that I am making is that in a vacuum, as Zyph said, I am taking all these "feelings" out of the equation and making it purely mathematical. In a purely mathematical sense, the 99/1 split makes sense. Both players win.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Why? You'd still be ahead by $1, free?

In a vacuum - yes, if I were a computer - yes. Maybe my mathematical thinking isn't as advanced but I also can't help thinking "what could I buy with $1?"

In a purely mathematical sense, the 99/1 split makes sense. Both players win.

Agreed, but there are very few of us who think in a purely mathematic way. Maybe I can't help but keep "feelings" in but as player B, I would make sure Player A knew I wanted half of any freebies. Player A would also be in no doubt that I'd use my powerful veto otherwise.

 

[Tucker Case]

Why? You'd still be ahead by $1, free? See the point that I am making is that in a vacuum, as Zyph said, I am taking all these "feelings" out of the equation and making it purely mathematical. In a purely mathematical sense, the 99/1 split makes sense. Both players win.

Without feelings, the money has no value. Money's value stems directly form psychology, so there's no way to remove human psychology from this situation.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

My initial premise is that of cold, calculation with no psychology. Just numbers. With that in mind, both people gain from the 99/1 split, and since Person A has the control, of course that person should choose the $99. Both win. "Fairness" is irrelevant without human psychology. But you bring up a good point, and this is why "classical" versions of certain economic theories such as socialism, communism, anarchism, and libertarianism do not work.

The 99/1 is still not logical though because of the utility value of the 1 dollar and the parameters of the game.
Economics is irrelevant without the the involvement of humans.

I'm not completely able to word my argument at the moment, let me think on it.
I think this game is somewhat of a veiled attack and the application of fairness in the game is assumed to reject many economic philosophies, which isn't true at all.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

The 99/1 is still not logical though because of the utility value of the 1 dollar and the parameters of the game.
Economics is irrelevant without the the involvement of humans.

I'm not completely able to word my argument at the moment, let me think on it.
I think this game is somewhat of a veiled attack and the application of fairness in the game is assumed to reject many economic philosophies, which isn't true at all.

I already figured out this was a "trap" thread on the concept of fairness. It was pretty well played as I didn't figure it out until today, and I'm usually pretty quick at figuring out "trap" threads. It's a good exercise in examining the difference between theory and real world application.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Without feelings, the money has no value. Money's value stems directly form psychology, so there's no way to remove human psychology from this situation.

Not true. From a mathematical perspective, both 99 and 1 are greater than zero.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I already figured out this was a "trap" thread on the concept of fairness. It was pretty well played as I didn't figure it out until today, and I'm usually pretty quick at figuring out "trap" threads. It's a good exercise in examining the difference between theory and real world application.

I more or less knew it was but answering honestly is the best policy.

I however don't agree with the premise of the "trap."
It makes assumptions that are not true.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I already figured out this was a "trap" thread on the concept of fairness. It was pretty well played as I didn't figure it out until today, and I'm usually pretty quick at figuring out "trap" threads. It's a good exercise in examining the difference between theory and real world application.

I know people who have been involved in this experiment. Its not a trap as it is something meant to bring out a discussion of human nature.

 

[Tucker Case]

Not true. From a mathematical perspective, both 99 and 1 are greater than zero.

But having more of something is not always mathematically superior.

Having 99 valueless things is not automatically mathematically superior to having 1 valueless thing, because there is really nothing of value gained by either party.

It's just that one party has more valueless **** to get rid of in the end.

In that case, the option that prevents having any worthless crap given to you in the first place is the one that is preferred. The one most likely to be rejected by the other party is 1/99, and thus that is mathematically superior when one removes human psychology.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I say $100/$0. What's the worse that could happen? you lose nothing and gain nothing. then why not max out your gains? You can only be rewarded in this game or have a result that would be as if though you didn't play at all.

And I think Person B would agree to play. If a person walked up to you and said, I have $100. Would you like a 50/50 chance to win it, with no cost, who would say no? That is, in essence, what the proposal would be.

Interesting point. Actually, you are probably correct. I am realizing that even MY premise was based on human psychology. If player A chooses $100, my position was that player B would reject that because he wouldn't be getting ANYTHING. However, by getting 0$, he wouldn't be losing anything. His position would remain as it was.

So, from a mathematical position alone, I agree with you.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

But having more of something is not always mathematically superior.

Having 99 valueless things is not automatically mathematically superior to having 1 valueless thing, because thee is really nothing gained by either party parties.

It's just that one party has more valueless **** to get rid of in the end.

In that case, the option that prevents having worthless crap given to you is the one that is most likely to be rejected by the other party, thus 1/99 is superior.

You are assigning value to the numbers. I am not. Arithmetically, 99>1, and anything>0. The numbers are neither have value OR are valueless.

 

[fredmertz]

I say $100/$0. What's the worse that could happen? you lose nothing and gain nothing. then why not max out your gains? You can only be rewarded in this game or have a result that would be as if though you didn't play at all.

And I think Person B would agree to play. If a person walked up to you and said, I have $100. Would you like a 50/50 chance to win it, with no cost, who would say no? That is, in essence, what the proposal would be.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

But having more of something is not always mathematically superior.

Having 99 valueless things is not automatically mathematically superior to having 1 valueless thing, because there is really nothing of value gained by either party.

It's just that one party has more valueless **** to get rid of in the end.

In that case, the option that prevents having any worthless crap given to you in the first place is the one that is preferred. The one most likely to be rejected by the other party is 1/99, and thus that is mathematically superior when one removes human psychology.

When you remove human psychology, the answer is 0 because no humans are around to play the game. :mrgreen: